Feedback for May 2005

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Of all the things
I ever expected to read on Talk Origins, a thorough debunking of
the Coso Artifact
wasn't amongst them! Thank you for publishing a
final deconstruction of that bit of woo-woo. "Ancient" artifacts
like Coso have been soundly rejected for awhile, but having a
concrete explanation for them is priceless.

I once coined a
term for the creationist argument that 'life, the universe and
everything' is too complicated to have evolved and must therefore
be created. I call this the "Here be Dragons" argument. This, of
course, is what ancient cartographers would write on the edges of
their maps to indicate unknown territory. Use it as you wish!

By the way, I once had a college Biology 101 professor at San
Francisco State University (!) use this argument. This was his
attempt to inject a creationist view into the Origin of Life part
of the material. His analogy was of a "Hurrican blowing through a
junk yard and a Boeing 747 being created by accident." After that
section was complete, he took survey by hands as to which view
the students preferred. By a MAJORITY of about 80% or more, the
students preferred the creationist view! I was utterly
disgusted.

I hope that there
will be something here soon. In the meantime you can go to our
associated site, The Panda's Thumb, and read Dino-Blood
Redux. [Since Dr. Hurd wrote this, a
version for this Archive
has been posted.]

In your response
to Claim CI100 you make three counter claims (selected from
many): in order to infer design we must know something about the
design process, design aims for simplicity, and life is nasty so
if life is designed so then is death and disease.

It seems incredible that you believe any of these claims. Your
first claim sees to say that archaeologists have lied about many
prehistoric "tools" and stonehenge since we have no knowledge of
how they were constructed or what they were used for.

Also, it is certainly not true that design aims for
simplicity. Often the simplest soution to a problem is not the
best. As a "simple" example, when a mathematician designs a
search algorithm he certainly does not design the simplest
possible algorithm (random search). Instead he chooses to use his
knowledge of mathematics to design a much more useful and complex
algorithm such as the simplex search. Also, a design may become
more complex if it is meant to provide more than bare minimum
function or to be more aesthetically pleasing.

I do not believe that anyone will argue that computers or cars
are deisgned. In the case of computers data corruption is not
(always) designed, it occurs naturally. In the case of cars
things break, they stop working properly because of normal wear
and tear. How then can one say that if life is designed that
disease and death must also be designed?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Archaeologists are
able to recognize primitive tools and such, even if they do not
always know how or why they were made, because archaeologists do
know something about the design process. For example, some
archaeologists have made flint tools themselves, so they know
what kind of fractures are made in the process and what kinds of
materials work best. You do not need to know everything about a
design process to recognize the design, but you must know
something about it. Without any knowledge of the designer or the
design process (the complete ignorance which "design" theorists
claim), everything in the universe looks equally designed.

To claim that death and disease merely come from corruption is
plain ignorance of biology. Without death, life simply could not
exist in anything remotely resembling its present form.
Disease-causing parasites are highly sophisticated organisms, and
much of that sophitication comes from parts that are essential to
their virulence. See the recommended readings with CH321 for more details.

My statement that design aims for simplicity is, admitedly,
and oversimplification. (I was aiming for simplicity.)
Most design aims to be as simple as possible, but that, of
course, is subject to design constraints. A Swiss Army knife can
have one blade that does three functions, but if you want twenty
functions, you have to add more blades. Complexity also comes in
when designers get lazy or careless, especially when adding
something to an existing design when a simpler, more elegant
design could be done by starting from scratch. But deisgners do
not (usually) go out of their way to make things complex.
Designers (usually) need to understand their designs, so they
break necessarily complex designs up into simple modules which
can be dealt with seperately before being assembled into the
whole. The exceptions to simplicity as a design principle are
artwork, which gets to be very complex only when it is
nonfunctional as anything but art, and designs done by
evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic algorithisms.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

As a biology
student (just starting) I was wondering how the endogenous
retroviral insertions are identified in the genome. Are their
genes identical to viruses in the wild? If so, why are they
inactive?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Endogenous
retrovirus insertions are short stretches of DNA that resemble
active retrovirus sequences but they are usually inactive. The
genome fragments can be easily recognized because they show
significant sequence similarity to known retroviruses. In most
cases there are so many differences that we can be confident that
the integrated retrovirus cannot be functional.

There are many different types of retroviral sequences in the
human genome. The most common class is called LINES (Long
INterspersed Sequences). There are several subclasses. One of the
common subclasses is the L1 subclass - there are about 30,000
copies of this type of LINE in the human genome.

You can view the human genome using the USCD Genome Browser
selecting for a view that shows you repetitive sequences. Here's
an example of an
L1 LINE on Chromosome 9. If you click on the solid black bar
in the middle of the image you'll see that it represents a
stretch of DNA that's 6168 bp long. It resembles a retrovirus
sequence but it has diverged by 3.6%.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I have the
unfortune of being a homeschooled 15 year old in a rabid
Fundamentalist household. They subjected me to the
pseudoscientific biology curriculum sold by abeka... I must say,
the creationists write so convincingly that I became one of them
for a period. But thanks to this website, I have regained control
of my mind.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hi T.O,

some further references for the section on 14C in coal. I had
cause to look into this myself (prompted by an email discussion)
and also contacted Prof. Gove. Some of their work has been
published and more has been submitted and it may be worth adding
to the 14C in coal discussion page.

This has a section on the formation of 14C in petroleum,
ranking the causes (with references) as:

1. 17O n,a 14C

2. 14N n,p 14C

3. 13C n,g 14C

4. 11B a,n 14C

5. direct 14C emission from tripartition of
226Ra

They specifically indicate that cause 4 (alpha transition of
11B to 14C) is dependent on the level of
boron in the material. Boron is, of course, quite common in many
coals and forms a large part of the fly ash at power
stations.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hi!

I just wanted to say thank you to every single person that has
contributed to this site, be they "evolutionists" or
"creationists". I am training to become a social psychologist,
and I have a special interest in the public understanding of
science and technology (as well as the scientific understanding
of public opinion!). Sites such as these are neverending supplies
of grist for my disciplinary mill, as well as being intensely
intellectually stimulating in their own right. These debates, not
only evolution vs creation, but also the debates within
evolutionary theory literature, are in my opinion some of the
most challenging in modern day society for their political,
ethical and social implications.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I have a question
that I am having trouble finding the answer to. To any
fundamental creationist, this site would surely result in anger.
Thankfully, I am not fundamental. However, the evidence on this
website is overwhelming that evolutionary processes do happen. My
question is to anyone who can answer it. To verify the
spontaneous generation, has any experiment (verified) involving
non-organic (non-living) materials resulted in the creation of
even the simplest living thing. If so, you have convinced me. If
not, I'm sure people will continue trying until it happens. To
think that life spontaneously generated without any intelligent
intervention would be a stretch for anyone who thinks rationally.
The simplest answer tends (overwhelmingly) to be correct and I
simply cannot see how spontaneous generation is more simple than
intelligent intervention. Until I'm proven wrong of course :).

The original living systems would necessarily have been pretty
simple. The reactions would need to have included something like
metabolism (acquiring energy for chemical reactions to sustain
life), and replication (reproduction of some components to a high
degree of accuracy), as well as compartmentalisation (the
formation of cell-like structures).

Metabolic processes that might have occurred in early life
include the use of a sulphur reaction, which has been
recreated in the lab, as well as seen in very primitive
organisms. Other processes have been demonstrated in the lab as
well.

Replicating molecules have been produced in the lab under
reasonable conditions that might have obtained in the early
earth. They include protein-nucleoside hybrids as well as RNA,
which, it turns out, can self-replicate.

And the existence of compartments has been shown by Sidney Fox
to occur under again realistic early earth conditions.

What hasn't been done yet is to have all three processes occur
in a realistic series and a single system. It is, in my view,
only a matter of time; but you may be more skeptical. At the
least all our research points to a natural origin of life.

for a good discussion. anyway basically he argues that you
cant get 'ought' from 'is'. so creationists are simply misguided
in trying to say that evolution is bad because of its moral
consequences. thats my philosophy student opinion on it
anyway.

The Naturalistic
Fallacy is not about naturalism in the sense required, nor is it
a fallacy. Moore is arguing that there is no property of the
natural world that equates to the Good ("ought" form "is" is
Hume's). It would be a bit of a red herring, although I did refer
to it in the Evolution
and Philosophy FAQ.

The kind of Naturalism that creationists object to is either a
metaphysical kind (there is only the natural world) or a
methodological kind (we can only find out the natural world by
science). It is the latter kind that science is committed
to, and the former kind they think it is committed to.

i just checked the hitler one as it seemed too ridiculous to
ignore. surely all you need to say is "arguments ad hominem don't
count" that would apply to all of the "X supported evolution and
was an evil git" arguments put forward by creationists.

otherwise good rebuttals but that should be the first point on
the list in my opinion.

I agree, but ad
hominems can legitimately be applied in cases where the
weight of the conclusion depends on the authority or character of
the person making the claim. For example, if the pope says that
Christianity always leads its followers to live a moral life, it
would be entirely appropriate to show that he himself hadn't.

This is not the case here, as you note. Evolutionary theory
makes no moral claims, and the truth of the theory does not rely
on whether it leads to good consequences or not.

The article by
Laurence Moran entitled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory", that
is posted on your website, makes an interesting statement. A
sentence in that article says, "It is a FACT that all living
forms come from previous living forms".

Question: What lifeform did the very first living form come
from? In his statement, it seems to me Mr. Moran has argued FOR
the existence of an intelligent Creator outside of our time/space
domain. Otherwise, somewhere up the chain, life must have come
from non-life.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The sentence you
are refering to ("It is a fact ..") comes from an article by R.C.
Lewontin. I agree with Lewontin that it is a fact that all modern
living organisms have evolved from earlier ancestors.

Your question addresses a different point. You are asking
whether there is a common ancestor of all modern living species.
The answer is "yes," the evidence for a common ancestor is
overwhelming and it's accepted by all scientists who understand
it. (I need to add a minor caveat. It is possible that there were
two or more common ancestors that swapped genes during the early
stages of evolution.)

Everybody agrees that the first primitive common ancestor
arose from non-life. Most scientists would argue that this
process was entirely natural. This is especially true of the
majority of scientists since they are not religious. Some
religious scientists believe that God had a hand in creating the
first living organism from non-living material.

I can assure you that neither Professor Lewontin or I were
arguing in favor of an intelligent Creator and there's nothing in
Lewontin's statement that supports such a claim.

This site provided
me which excellent information on Charles Darwin's the origin of
species, and therefor helped me to gain an award for my
contributions to science lessons at school. An excellent site for
people wanting to browse works, of for those who need
references.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Just as I
expected, my feedback was NOT selected...probably due to that
three letter word that was included in my feedback. I am sure
that I've been labeled as a fundamentalist, but I just happen to
see the bigger picture. Utilizing human developed science to
debate some point or attempt to debunk a specific fact is still
focusing on the small picture. All the man made excuses that
purport that DNA is not intelligent are absurd. Is DNA not
instructional? Is code utilized in instruction? Is intelligence
required for code, hence instruction. The evolutionist is truly
the most "faithful" of all people to "believe" in something that
does not have any evidence of being "true". Will the "true
fundamentalist" please stand up. The truth of our existence is
out there to any who are willing to see the "bigger
picture".

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I just found this
site. It was recommended to me by another acquaintence.

It's great! You guys are doing a wonderful job in the fight to
eradicate ignorance and seek truth. As a freethinker I welcome
the opportunity to encourage your efforts.

You see, I was a fundamentalist, evangelical, creationist for
over 30 years until I "saw the light." The amazing thing is that
I didn't even know I was blind! Without being demeaning I need to
say that blind devotion to an archaic religious dogma is quite
debilitating. You simply act and speak the way you think you are
supposed to and before you know it you aren't thinking for
yourself at all. Yet, when anyone challenges you, your response
is based solely on devotion to scripture you don't even
understand and have never bothered to question. Isn't that
sad?

The main thing that woke me up was realizing that the Bible
was simply not the source of all truth and that it in fact,
contradicted itself. Since the Word of God was supposed to be
infallible I couldn't quite accept this revelation at first and
had to go through a long period of "soul" searching before I
realized how wrong I had been. Now I have a new desire to fight
ignorance and promote evolution and truth whenever I can.

Needless to say this has made me some enemies too.
Unfortunately many of my former friends and even some family
members don't know what to think of me anymore. According to
them, I've "lost the faith." But if I have, then I've found
freedom!

I know this sounds like some sappy testimonial but I really
mean it. After such a long time of believing in myths and fairy
tales, the truth is so refreshing. It makes you want to go out
and change the world. In fact I've heard the same sort of
language used by people who have "been saved" and have "found
Jesus." In reality it just plain feels good to not have to submit
to archaic ideas about God and religion and to really pursue
truth they way it should be.

I've rambled on for quite long enough, so I'll close for now.
Thanks, again, for the website and keep up the good work.
Ignorance will not be eradicated in a single generation. It will
take a collective effort of all of us to achieve the goal of
logic, reason and sanity in an insane world.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

First off, love
this site and all the info one can find here. But I have a
question. Did Darwin ever write in any of the editions of "Origin
of Species" the following line..." having been originally
breathed by the Creator"? It has been said that it is contained
in the last chapter, of his book but I have not been able to
locate this line in any edition.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Yes he did write this, it is from the final sentence of the book:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its
several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to
the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

The interesting thing is that this is how the sentence read in the second and
all subsequent editions of the Origin of Species. The first edition was
slightly different:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its
several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into
one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Darwin, apparently concerned by accusations that his work might be considered
irreligious, added “by the Creator” to the sentence in the second edition.

Some antievolutionists will
actually reverse this story (I personally witnessed Duane Gish of the ICR doing
this) and claim that Darwin removed the words “by the Creator” from the later
editions of the Origin of Species. This is not the case.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I was surfing the
net, looking for some info for a school work, and I found your
site. I think it's very good, you have some really hard work to
keep the site updated, and I just wanted to congratulate you for
the web page! Very good work! :)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

i have a question,
and I hope you will answer it! Is evolution a theory? If you say
yes, then how did God create man? and why are monkeys or apes
still alive if it took millions of years to evolve? wouldnt the
monkey or ape have died before it fully evolved? It says in the
Bible that God created man in six days and on the seventh he
rested, so how could we have evolved if we were all equally
created by God in our own special way? please answer my questions
thank you!

I have noticed
that, in response to Russell
Humphrey's cosmology, Talk Origins has used old-earth
creationist sources. I find this somewhat disturbing to cite
articles in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal that did not
have proper review (i.e. not peer-reviewed by a more diverse body
of academics than simply fanatical creationists who want to "play
science").

I guess my problem is that, if an OEC had piped up with
something new, we evolutionists would have been scrutinizing it
extremely carefully. However, since this citation of OEC saves us
some work in doing so, we accept it. I am wondering if there are
mainstream scientific treatments of Humphrey's cosmology.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I Appreciate the
time you spent on this wonderful website. I found it by asking
Jeeves, "How old is the planet Earth"? I am writing this comment
to perhaps release some of the anger and frustration I've felt
during my life concerning religion and it's claims. Especially in
the last 5 years. I rarely speak out against religion, mainly out
of respect for the people who choose to believe in creationism
and god as the creator of our planet, but since America seems to
be heading toward a theocratic form of government I have become
more vocal. Even at times disrespectful toward those who are
trying to impose their beliefs by shredding the U.S.
Constitution. What I tell people who try to "convert" me is the
following statement: If our life expectancy was say, 1000 years
would you still believe the earth was flat, even today? These
crusaders are stunting our growth.

Please explain to
us [the readers] how come "Lucy's" knee cap was found 22miles
& 200' deeper than the rest of the skelliton. Also explain,
in detail, how come all of the "prehuman ancestors" skuls are
smashed in the back & why a single tooth of a wild pig could
possibly be mistaken for a "Missing link" (Nebraska Man). I fully
understand that this site is based on mainstream opinions &
atheistic vew points & I understand if they can not give me a
good explanation for these fax pas.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Well, I can answer
a couple of your questions. First, not all fossil skulls are
smashed in the back. Some are pretty well intact, but most have
suffered some damage. These things are thousands or even millions
of years old, and have not been kept in vaults, remember. The
world is an unforgiving place, and things happen (like rocks fall
down hills).

As to "Nebraska Man", you should know that pig teeth and human
teeth are actually quite similar. This is not too surprising
given pigs and humans are both omnivores, and thus have a
generalist dentition. It's one of the reasons so many schools use
fetal pigs for dissections in biology laboratories. Second, the
tooth was quite worn. That happens as they animal ages,
especially with a diet composed mostly of tough vegetation. If
you have a dog or cat, you can verify this wear and tear for
yourself. Finally, if you read up on the sequence of events, the
tooth was tentatively identified as coming from a hominid.
After closer examination, and an examination of similar teeth
from a variety of species, paleontologists at the American Museum
of Natural History revised to source.

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

See here for the details of why the claim
about Lucy's knee is false and its repetition dishonest.

I think it really overemphasizes the importance of genetic
drift, while making a rather poor assumption that there are few
experimental test of selection in the field.

I myself have witnessed very good experimental evidence of
selection in the field, for example experiments on predation vs.
sexual selection pressures in peocilliids in the field done by
Dr. John Endler. There are hundreds of such studies.

even logically, it is ludicrous to assume that genetic drift
could be more important than selection under most circumstances.
whether you are talking about biological selection pressures such
as competition, predation, parasitism, mate choice etc., or
physical ones, I can't think of any case where an argument could
be made that on average (in a given environment say) that genetic
drift would play a significant role. At best, it would apply in
very few circumstances.

In fact, most evolutionary biologists i have ever worked with
would use genetic drift as a kind of "null hypothesis".

I am very unclear as to why this argument is presented here at
talk.origins in the fashion it is. I would think the far
predominant view, and that supported by the evidence, would be
that selection is a far more important mechanism on average than
drift.

I'd be willing to bet that those who favor drift as a
predominant mechanism are those who mostly model for a living,
rather than experiment in the field.

bottom line, you should present this in a more balanced light;
as it is presented, it looks like a predominant argument.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The article is
somewhat outdated ... I'll try and post a more modern version.

The point I was trying to make was not that there is NO
evidence for natural selection. That would be silly. My point was
that there is much less direct evidence for selection than most
people realize. This is still true.

The importance of random genetic drift is difficult to grasp
if you are only interested in adaptations. However, there is no
doubt whatsoever concerning the data. The vast majority of
allelic differences in humans, for example, are neutral by any
definition you prefer. Most of them are outside of any known
genes. This means that their frequency in the human population is
only influenced by random genetic drift. They are invisible to
natural selection.

Studies of homologous proteins in different species reveal
that the vast majority of differences have no effect on function.
Those difference must have become fixed in the species by random
genetic drift. Indeed, the whole idea of a molecular clock, which
ticks stochastically, depends on evolution by drift. There aren't
many scientists who deny the importance of random genetic drift.
Almost all modern evolutionary biologists recognize that drift is
the predominat mechanism of evolution.

The reason why I wrote the FAQ is to explain to people like
you that there's more to evolution than natural selection. This
is important because we don't want evolutionists to make mistakes
when they defend evolution. It makes us look bad to the the
anti-evolutionists.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

It has been said
in many articles that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago
like it as a fact, when in fact that statement has not been
proven and has no way to be proven. The word Evolution is a very
tricky word in fact there are about six different meanings or
corresponding definitions or terms that go along with that very
word. Hi my name is Andrew Torsky I am an Airman in the United
States Air Force. I happen to be a computer geek but also a
researcher on creation vs evolution using scientific laws. Laws
that are pretty much absolute and that are proven and can be
tested used and observed. There is a big difference between
science and evolution. Science is actual facts and evolution is a
theory. Just like creation is a theory. there is a difference
between the three. Science is all facts, all laws and can be
proven. Creation and Evolution have there differences, in fact
they are the exact opposite of each other. But here is another
difference. Creation is supported by scientific facts, not
proven, but supported. Evolution is supported by my tax dollars
and taught in public schools and drilled into the human minds of
every kid in America today. Which is why most people in the
united states believe in evolution. Did you know that Hitler said
“if you tell a lie loud enough long enough and often
enough, the people will believe it”. I believe in the
bible, the one that God inspired men to write. There is nothing
that can be proven wrong. Not to be rude or anything, but if you
think that you have found something that you think is a
contradiction, or is wrong or something to that nature, let me
know and I will get back to you with an answer. Anyways as I was
saying… if you look at some simple things such as the
human population/growth curve chart it shows that human
population started around 4400 years ago. That would be one
example that supports creation. Another one would be the age of a
couple things in this world such as the oldest tree. Its younger
than 4400 years old. The oldest dessert is younger than 4400
years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why isn’t
there an older tree somewhere? Or an older desert? Well that is
simple to answer, but ill get to that a little later on in this
email. Did you know that life on earth could not exist no more
that 25,000 years ago? Why is that? Because the magnetic field
would have been so strong any earlier that it would have burned
everything on the earth. It would be just as bad as living on
Venus. Another fact is the earth is slowing down at a pretty
constant rate. If you go back too far the earth would be spinning
so fast that the dinosaurs that text books say were there, would
have been flung off the earth. And the moon. Its leaving us at
the rate of 1 inch per year. If you go back too far in
time…. The dinosaurs that texts books say were here would
have drowned a couple times a day because the moon controls the
tide. Now see this supports creation because if you go back only
6,000 years which is the estimated time creationists say earth
was created, these few things would not be a problem. The
magnetic field would have not effected life on earth, the earth
would not be spinning too fast and the moon was about 500 to 600
feet closer to the earth. But in order to say that there
isn’t a God somewhere out there, Evolutionists had to come
up with a theory on how the earth got here on its own and how we
evolved. The bib bang theory was proven wrong a while ago. It
makes no sense. You are a scientist right? Or at least a
researcher. Well there is a few laws you should refer to before
spreading that theory around. 1st law of thermal dynamics
“matter cannot be created or destroyed”. This means
that everything was here from the start, or if you are a
creationist, you would believe that it was created by God who
would be powerful enough to do anything with this universe.
Another law is “the law of conservation of angular
momentum”. If you know what this law means if throws the
whole big bang theory off. Especially if this is how our solar
system came to be. Because two of our planets spin backwards, and
a few of the moons spin backwards showing no intentions or record
to predict its rotation on a different axis.

The Bible is supported very much by science and its laws
people either dont read and understand enough details of the
bible enought to understand that or they dont understand or know
science enough to apply it to the bible.

Well im sure this is enough for you to read, if you even
consider reading something from an 18 year old who might not know
anything. but let me make clear to you that I don’t want
this t oturn into a email war. Im just trying prove this theory
(not fact) of the earth being billions of years old, wrong. But
feel free to email me back and I will be happy to respond.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

I am sorry to
break the news that your religious beliefs are based largely on
lies. About contradictions in the Bible, for example: Try to
arrange the four Gospels into a single account that is faithful
to all four. You cannot do it, because the accounts are
contradictory in several details. That does not mean the Bible is
wrong, but it does show that a literal reading of it is wrong.

The evidence you give is a classic creationist disinformation.
None withstands scrutiny, and I urge you to scrutinize it for
yourself. Here is some information to get you started:

Your Hitler quote is appropriate, if ironic. You have been
lied to, repeatedly and on many subjects. The creationism that
you have been exposed to often drives people away from religion
when people discover its dishonest foundation. You may want to
read some of the personal accounts at Glenn Morton's web
site to see how others have dealt with the
disillusionment.

I've been trying
to follow the Kansas ID 'trial' and its been rather difficult
getting any details. Have you considered a page (or link) devoted
to these official efforts to erode the standards of
education?

This definition of
evolution is given by VonRoeschlaub in your article "God and
Evolution":

"The theory of evolution: A number of theories that explain,
to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution
occurs."

Elsewhere on your website, the following statement is made:
[Stephen Jay]Gould is stating the prevailing view of the
scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution
consider it to be a fact."

Question: Is there debate or confusion within the evolutionary
science community over the meaning of the terms "fact" and
"theory" and the application of these terms?

Given these statements, would you have a problem with
inclusion of the proposed Georgia science textbook sticker,
particularly if the statement "regarding the origin of living
things" were removed? The proposed sticker states:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a
theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This
material should be approached with an open mind, studied
carefully and critically considered."

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The Oxford
English Dictionary offers this etymology:

1839 W. H. LEIGH Reconnoit. Voy. S. Austral. 93-4 (Morris)
Here [in Kangaroo Island] is also the wallaba... The young of the
animal is called by the islanders a joè. 1845 MOORE
Tasman. Rhymings (1860) 15 He was a ‘joey’ which, in
truth, Means nothing more than that the youth Who claims a
Kangaroo descent Is by that nomenclature meant. 1866 Cornhill
Mag. Dec. 762 Large flocks of kangaroo..the larger males..towered
above the flying bucks, flying does and joeys, the half-grown
bucks, does, and young ones. 1887 All Year Round 30 July
(Farmer), Joey..is applied indifferently to a puppy, or a kitten,
or a child, while a wood-and-water-joey is a hanger about hotels,
and a doer of odd jobs.

However, a "joey" was also a slang term for a threepenny
piece, and typically marsupial babies are very small, so perhaps
it has something to do with that. Rhyming slang was very common
in Australia, and often followed the London patois.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

In February 2003
Feedback the question was raised if I was a “stealth
agent” seeking to sabotage Talk.origins regarding my
recommendation of Del Ratzsch’s “The Battle of
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution
Debate” in the September 2000 Feedback.

The answer is no. I am not seeking any such sabotage.

I presented Ratzsh’s book as “one of the best and
most objective books I have ever read on the subject (including
books written by both sides),” in response the person
attacked not the actual book, but the author.

Even then however (as John Wilkins wisely pointed out) that,
“speaking at a creation conference does not automatically
make someone a creationist.” He did take part in the book
“Mere Creation,” but even then is actual role did not
present much material that evolutionists would dispute. That is,
he focused on the concept of design in general (e.g. how we
attribute artifacts to be designed) rather than arguing for
intelligent design in biology per se. He wants the new ID
movement to avoid the pitfalls if its predecessor (the
traditional creationist movement) and he believes they will
listen to what he has to say. IIRC, Ratzch claimed in the book
itself that he did not pretend to know which side (in the
creation-evolution debate) is correct, though his views may or
may not have changed since he wrote the book. But in any case,
the book itself seems to be one of the best and most impartial
one I’ve ever seen on the issue. Ratzsch criticized both
sides for the mistakes they’ve made, and does not advocate
(in the book) one side over the other.

For this and other reasons, I still consider the book to be a
“must-read” for anyone interested in the
creation-evolution controversy.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I have found out
some interesting science through my research about evolution and
creation. first of all, the dictionary meaning for air is wind
and breath, and the english dictionary says the word spirit is
energy, but to find out what kind of energy, I crossreferenced to
the Greek dictionary, and it said spirit is also wind and breath,
and both wind and breath according to the english dictionary are
air, so this means that spirit is air, and that air is spirit,
and since air is not the spirit of a man, it can only be the
spirit of God, and science says, air is gases, and it was a gas
bubble that formed and expanded and formed the universe, and so
air origineated the universe, and the dictionary says the word
GOD means the originator of the universe. now science says, air
could not support life at first, then when it formed oxygen and
other components and it changed to become where it could support
life so it went from a primitive form to a higher form, and the
dictionary says, the meaning for evolve is to go from a primitive
state to a higher state, so air evolved and Darwins origin of
species has proven that lifeforms evolve, therefore air is not
just a spirit, but a lifeform. science has a theory that is used
in modern atomic theory today that asserts that air is the
leading element in the universe, and that it compresses and forms
heavy matter, and air contains atoms that contains a nucleus that
contains protons, electrons, and neuterons, these protons and
electrons are what makes electricity, and when the electrons and
protons , which are positive and negative charges, they cause an
explosion, thus the big bang was caused by air as well. now when
the explosion happened it caused the air to compress amd matter
was formed. and the electrical force caused a huge storm that
formed a black hole, and it was like a huge tornado in space, and
it brought the mass together, and life on earth was formed when a
comet or asteroid which is left over matter from the big bang,
hit the waters of the earth, and all this was caused from the air
compressing from the explosion of the big bang, therefore air
formed the mass that formed the planets, the sun, the moon, and
the asteroids and comets, and the chemicals that were in the
comet or asteroid that hit the waters and formed amino acid, and
mixed with the mudd in the bottom of the oceans and seas, and
formed life, so air is even responsible for life on earth, and
since air is the spirit of God, for the bible says, God is a
spirit, then God created or origineated the universe, and since
air is proven by science to exist, then science has proven that
God exists.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

To address the
contention that a Flood could have occurred, or not, I submit
that if it did it could been done in only one way, there being no
other way scientifically possible if the Biblical account
conditions are to be met: worldwide darkness, water rising and
falling rather rapidly.

The water would have to come from and return to an off-earth
source. If Earth were surrounded by equilateral triangle
spacecraft joining to form a geodesic dome, darkness would
result. If the craft converted energy into hydrogen and oxygen
and ejected it at high levels it would form ice crystals and fall
to warm lower levels where it would combine as rain. It would
have to be removed by gravity beams until salt water was
detected, being converted back into energy. The Flood account
timeline is absurdly short for any 'natural' explanation, and
absurd in toto as a 'naturally' explained event. Restoration of
land animal creatures would require that they be recreated in
numbers sufficient to allow reproduction, the same applying to
fish species that die off.

This is submitted only as an exercise in pure logic devoid of
"beliefs". It does, however, require acceptance of the existence
of a space dwelling culture having a consuming interest in Earth
and its 'human' population, for some unknown reason, to
eventually be learned, if true. Finis.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hi, I am a
16-year-old biology student from a Catholic school in Minnesota.
My class is currently reading sections of Jonathan Wells' book
Icons of Evolution. Each student was assigned one
chapter to write an essay on, and I received chapter five,
Haeckel's Embryos. Although I am not usually particularly
interested in science, I found reading Wells' book to be
fascinating; he brings out all of the flaws of Darwinian theory
that I, as a religious individual, simply could not gloss over. I
came across this website while doing some extra research for my
essay, and I wanted to defend Wells on one instance where I think
PZ Myers read incorrectly.

"...in what I consider the most amusing line in this entire
chapter, Wells expresses indignation that 'Some textbooks,
instead of reproducing or redrawing Haeckel's embryos, use actual
photos.' How dare those nefarious textbook authors use
photographic data to support their ideas!"

I believe Myers read this comment of Wells' incorrectly. Wells
has a slightly humorous side to his writing, and putting the word
"photos" in Italics seems to me to be sarcastic. I would imagine
Wells would say the last comment of the above quote, "How
dare..." in a sardonic voice in regard to Myers' statement. It is
not, as Myers states, indignation.

Thank you for your time. I generally tend to agree with Wells
and the proofs he offers, but I am always open to other
interpretations. Again, thank you.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

If Wells were
simply being humorous, that would have been a brief comment that
went no further. However, check the appendix of the book, where
he presents his scorecards for various textbooks: one of the
criteria he uses to mark books down is the use of photographs to
illustrate the similarity of embryos. He obviously takes it
seriously enough that he condemns books that use photos.

I suggest that you take a look at the FAQ on Wells. He is an exceedingly poor
biologist who exhibits some shockingly bad scholarship --
although one should not attribute to malice that which is best
explained by incompetence, his record of distortion is so awful
that it's inescapably intentional.

And I must say that I'm rather shocked that a Catholic school
is using Wells' dreadful tripe in a classroom. My experience with
kids from Catholic schools is that they've usually been given a
solid grounding in the basics of biology, and haven't wasted much
time on that kind of creationist garbage. You have managed to
reduce my respect for the Catholic school system in Minnesota.
Should I say thanks?

You might mention to your teacher that you need some
instruction in the scientific method, as well. Science doesn't
deal in "proofs".

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

First, let me say
I love what you’re doing here, and appreciate the hard work
that goes into this web site. My daughter is presently enrolled
in a school that uses the Core Knowledge curriculum and I was
trying to see what they would be teaching her about evolution,
when I came across this lesson plan.
"http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/resrcs/lessons/01_7_Evolution.pdf"
I understand this is from 2001 and may have been changed, and
have not had the opportunity to verify that this is what is still
being used. But am I wrong in thinking that the examples for
theories on page 12 is an attempt to make theories look like
foolish guesses?

Over all the
lesson plan looked good to me. But the page you pointed out, #12,
did seem a bit odd. Teachers have much more to bring to the class
than can be written in a lesson plan (else why bother with
teachers). So, I have no real means to know how that teacher
planned to use that page. (Yeah, I know it was in the "Lesson
Plan"), but that is comparing an outline to the final novel).

If you are concerned, I suggest two actions; 1) talk with your
child about their school work- you should anyway, 2) talk with
the teacher about your specific concern- the format should be:
Hi, I am ____'s Father. I was reading your lesson plan PDF and I
was confused by page 12. Would you please let me know how you
impliment this? Thanks.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I stumbled across
some fundamentalist site and they stated that the Miautso people
(or Miao) in China have records indicating they came from one of
Noah’s children after the flood. I found this interesting
and Googled for more information – what I found were many
more religious sites with the same information, treating this as
proof-positive that everything they choose to believe is in fact
"true". I even tried searching this on TalkOrigins, which I
respect and refer to quite often, but found no mention or
refutation of this assertion about the Miautso people. I am
wondering, have you heard this and does anyone have more
information or links to refer? Thank you!

The Noah-like
Miao/Miautso flood stories probably all derive from a translation
by the Christian missionary Edgar A. Truax, Genesis According
to the Miao People. The Miao or Miautso are also known as
Hmong. Web searches for a Hmong flood reveal a quite different
flood story, such as this flood
myth in which the survivors are a boy and his sister,
floating in a large drum. They have an incestuous marriage and
give birth to an egg-like "baby" which, when cut into pieces,
gives rise to other humans and all other living things. Such a
myth has much in common with other flood myths from China. Given
all these facts, it appears Traux's "translation" comes more from
the missionary than from the Miao.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I just wanted to
thank you for this invaluable resource. I constantly refer to it
to answer questions that come up in talks with family and
friends. You have helped to supply the answers to creationist
challenges, and I applaud your efforts. Keep up the excellent
work.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Unprofessional
journalism is what I've seen on this site. You attack Dr. Hovind
with insinuation, and malice, but not the truths he presents. No
effort is made to discuss these truths. Why do I bother emailing
you? Some day you may see the need to repent of your sins and
allow God to forgive you and your attitude. The only other option
is eternity in Hell. It's either God's way or the hot way. Why
not answer the evolutionary reason (there isn't one) that
polystrata fossils exist? Give one good explaination for them.
I'm sorry I should feel sorry for you and pray that God will some
day allow your eyes to be opened. The bible says that Satan will
send a strong delusion (that you'll believe a lie). Could it be
that the THEORY of Evolution is that delusion? Have you ever told
a lie? If so then you are a liar just like the rest of us. Have
you ever stolen anything? If so you are a thief. Have you ever
looked on someone with lust. If so then you are an adulterer. By
God's rules (the 10 commandments) you are a sinner. Do you think
you'd go to heaven if you die? Do you think you're a good person.
Didn't we just establish that you are a lying, thieving,
adulterer? Really, If we are honest, with those qualifications
you (we) are doomed to a Hell fire eternity. But God made a way
that we could be with him in heaven if we only repent (turn away
and forsake) of our sins, and accept his gift to us. Christ died
in our place on the cross so we don't have to. The bible is a
historically accurate book. People and places and events in the
bible have been substantiated by the secular world. Jesus
actually walked this earth. If Jesus really walked this earth
(and he did), and he was really God in the flesh (He said He
was), then don't you think that maybe He knows what is best for
us, and that He loves us. He died for you, and then rose again
from the dead to prove that He is who He said He was. Verily,
Verily I say unto you; except a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

According to the
referrer, Mr. Witt's
reply is to the No Answers in Genesis
web site which is completely independent of this web site but has
a link to our feedback page made from its homepage.

Still Mr. Witt's charges are false. Neither we nor "No Answers
in Genesis" ignore Hovind's claims in any way. We have an entire
section on Kent Hovind that includes
a detailed refutation of many of his arguments as well as to
links creationists who also find Hovind's arguments lacking.

The charge that we can't give an explaination for polystrate
fossils is also false: the geological explanation has
been known for well over a century. See our "Polystrate" Fossils FAQs.

And one has to find it amusing that someone who rants that our
side does not address Hovind's "truths" devotes most of his
message to a threat of Hell fire.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

just a quicky.

firstly, good site, one of my faves. i have a quick point.
given that most philosophers now think that in response to
scepticism you have to adopt a position of fallabilism, it seems
to me that although evolution is a 'fact',, which i do think it
is in that i thinks its 100% true, we might never be able to
'know' its a fact with certainty, since any argument to certainty
falls prey to sceptical arguments. i know that you can invoke the
closure principle, and IBE as an escape but even so you are still
admitting the possiblity of fallibilty. obviously this holds just
as much for any belief system that says creation science is a
fact.

I think that
"fact" in fallibilist epistemology means something very like that
which Professor Gould defined
it as:

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there
ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final
proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about
the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual
truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely
for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science
"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent."

All of science is in this boat. An extreme skeptic, a
Pyrrhonian skeptic as Hume called it (Enquiry, Sect XXI,
Part II), could doubt any scientific fact at all. And as Hume
noted, "all human life must perish, were his [the extreme
skeptic's] principles universally and steadily to prevail."

This is quite dumb
its bad that you have to think about weither or not God is
real...the thing wrong with evolution is the fact that DARWIN THE
MAKER OF THE THEORY EVEN SAID IT DIDNT EXSIST...THERE IS ONLY OEN
THING TO BELIEVE IN AND THAT IS God...read Gensis 1-2

I have personally
found that the most simple of observations point to the
impossibility of the modern world existing aside from a Creation.
I agree that Evolution is a theory and that some microevolution
does take place, however there are things call laws that are
never wrong and that are recreatable which bring evolution into
almost laughable question.

I am not at
Berkley, but I have seen Mr. Hovind in action. I would have to
say that the decision not to appear on the same stage with Mr.
Hovind could stem from either self respect, or a strong gag
reflex.

This site is a
wonderful resource; thanks for taking the time to think through
the tough questions. Speaking of tough questions, I'm tired of
hearing the argument to incredulity, "Does a dog evolve into a
whale? No, because they have different numbers of chromosomes. A
dog will always be a dog because it has 78 chromosomes (no more,
no less), regardless of what minor changes take place." What's
the evolutionist response to "Chromosomes lock kinds, and prevent
interbreeding"?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

There was once a
theory that chromosomal differences caused speciation - it was
associated with the work of Michael J. D. White, who called it
"stasipatry". However, chromosomal numbers can vary quite wildly.
See the Post of the Month
for January 1999 for details or do a
search on "chromosomal". White's theory is now regarded as
one way species can evolve, but not the only way, or even the
most common.

Chromosomes are not a lock-and-key system - quite large
changes can be matched up in pairing.

One of my primary
issues with Evolution is that its supporters seem to be content
with "well it just happened over millions of years" as the basis
for what they believe. This seems to ignore some specific
questions about the precise way in which life got from "there" to
here.

For example, at one particular moment in our planet's history,
the decision had to be made for organisms to switch from asexual
reproduction to reproduction requiring a male and female. This
seems like a very informed, deliberate shift in the way things
happened, and seems counterintuitive to what one would expect
from a simple life-form reacting to a random environment. "Over
millions of years" just falls short for me because certain
'decisions' had to be made at one particular point in time.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Sex is not a
simple matter of male and female. Many organisms have a diversity
of mating types, up to 7 or more. The process of meiosis in which
cells form by duplicating gene complements is also a partial step
to the combining of gene complements from different cells.

Sex evolved before there were multicellular organisms. Even
now nearly all single celled organisms have a mechanism which
enables them to mix their genes, ranging from inserting small
amounts of genetic material in a process called "conjugation",
through to complete half-and-half mixing.

Sex has an evolutionary advantage, because it mixes mutations
that might assist a lineage, so that at least one lucky lineage
will get more than one of these mutations. This aids in resisting
predators and pathogens.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Re: Altruism
explained in evolutionary terms. Parents risking their lives for
their children is an evolutionary advantage for mortal species.
The DNA carries on. The next stage is to expand one's definition
from parent to caretaker and child to anyone.

It is important to
distinguish between two not-always-distinct senses of "altruism"
here: psychological altruism, and genetic altruism. Let's call
them PA and GA. Under evolutionary theory, it is held that you
will not long find any organism that is GA, for evolution acts in
such a way that genes can be (mathematically) treated as if they
were selfish and rational agents. The persistent existence of GA
in organisms would be a disproof of evolutionary theory as it now
stands.

But the existence of PA is not a problem. Of course, there are
people whose behaviour is altruistic. The evolutionary
explanation is that such psychologies are genetically selfish,
even if the individual doesn't breed because of their behaviour.
That is to say, PA is either an advantage to the genetic traits
overall, not just in that individual (a concept known as
"inclusive fitness"), or it doesn't actually cause much harm to
the genetic fitness of the individual (for example, if I give $1
to a beggar).

Is there PA? Yes there is. Is there GA? Not if the game theory
account of evolution is a correct model, no. Does genetic
selfishness explain psychological altruism? That's the claim.

Hey - like don't
you know that the earth is round!! And if you all were so damned
right, why don't you collect the $250,000 from Dr.Dino.

BWAHAHAHA!

Kidding aside, the site is great and I admire your ability to
respond kindly to uninformed minions of Gish et al. who
repeatedly trot out such inane falsehoods such as "if man(sic)
evolved from apes, why are there still apes", etc. My personal
favorite canard is the "well known fact that men have one less
rib than women."

Hi. I'm a big fan.
That was the "praise". Now for the "random thought". I was
reading some guy going on about how "Darwinist dogma is on the
brink of collapse", as they do --- and I wondered just how
long creationists have been saying this sort of thing? For
how many years has evolution been on its last legs and the brink
of collapse? A list of quotations to this effect stretching back
several decades would be informative and funny.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Who says apes
didn't evolve? There is an apelike creature named Dryapithecus
that is roughly intermediate between modern paes and us. And
there are, of course, primates before them. The fossil record is
sparse because woodlands creatures don't fossilise well, but we
do have a number of ape fossils, and more are being
discovered.

Well, as I note in
the How to be Anti-Darwinian
FAQ there are several theories that are covered by the term
"theory of evolution". So let's think what sorts of things might
disprove or disconfirm each one:

1. Transmutationism - that species change form to become other
species. To disconfirm this, we'd need to show that no species
ever changed from one to another. Since this is, in fact, a
matter of observation, it cannot be disconfirmed. But we might
find reason to think that only a certain amount of transmutation
can occur. I cannot conceive now what sort of evidence that might
be. So leave it open. But it would need to be a
theoretical reason, and not merely an assertion, as the
creationists "argue".

2. Common descent - that similar species have common
ancestors. Again, this is well-established. We need to show that
apart from the observed common descent that there is areason to
think this is limited to some scale. Same problems as for
transmutation.

3. Struggle for existence - that more are born than can
survive. Observed. But you might show that many, if not most,
cases are in fact optimal in terms of birth rates - this would
need to be a large empirical study.

4. Natural selection - that the relatively better adapted have
more successful offspring. This is a logical deduction from the
facts of biology - that there is variation, struggle for
existence due to more being born than survive, and hereditable
traits that have economic success. To disconfirm it, you need to
show that these conditions fail to apply to most cases.

5. Sexual selection - that the more "attractive" organisms of
sexual species mate more (and have more offspring), causing
otherwise unfit traits to spread. To disconfirm this, you'd need
to show that the cases explained by it, such as the peacock's
tail, have a better (adaptive) explanation, in each singular
case.

6. Biogeographic distribution - that species occur close by
related species, explaining the distributions of various genera.
This could be shown false by mapping related species and seeing
that they don't tend to be adjacent to their nearest living
relatives.

7. Heredity -

a. Darwin's own theory was called "pangenesis" and is no
longer accepted (it was a form of what we now call
"neo-Lamarckism", or the inheritance of aquired characters). It
has been shown false.

b. Weismannism - the more modern view that genes don't record
information about the life of organisms. This has been shown to
have important exceptions, in what is known as "epigenetic"
inheritance. One very important example of this is maternal
imprinting, where non-genetic molecules that are attached to the
DNA can restrict the expression of genes, and which often comes
from the mother's egg, and is acquired in her life. The research
program now is how often and ho this happens.

8. Random mutation - the notion that changes in genes aren't
directed towards "better" alternatives; in other words, that
mutations are blind to the needs imposed by the ecology in which
organisms find themselves. If a mechanism were found by which
organisms did encode information in their mutations - such
as a bias for mutations to be ecologically useful, that would
tend to disconfirm it as a general rule, but it may still remain
a good first approximation.

9. Genetic drift/neutralism - the view that some changes in
genes are due to chance or the so-called "sampling error" of
small populations of organisms. Molecular neutralism is the view
that the very structure of genes changes in purely random ways.
Drift can be disproven by showing, for example, that all
interesting cases are due to selection. Neutralism can be
disproven by showing that all interesting cases are not random
and have a strong selective bias.

10. Functionalism - the view that features of organisms are
neither due to or are constrained by the shapes (morphology) of
their lineage, but are due to their functional, or adaptive,
benefits.

This last one is contentious now. At the extreme it is the
claim that anything on an organism is selectively advantaged.
This is clearly false. Some organs that were once adaptive
are no longer (such as cave fish eyes). So a distinction is made
between "adaptation" (which eyes are or were) and adaptive (which
cave fish eyes aren't). But the idea that everything is or was an
adaptation is debated too. How to prove it one way or the other?
I can't say.

"In order to falsify a theory, you need to know what the
theory says. Finding an out-of-sequence fossil or an "impossible"
animal may not falsify evolution, but it would falsify the
particular theories (in this case historical theories) about that
group of organisms - for example, if we found a modern rabbit in
the Cambrian Era, we would have a massive problem with existing
phylogenies. We might even say that if the program of
constructing phylogenies based on the theory of common descent
were that wrong, there might be a problem with common descent,
and abandon that theory. But this, in itself, would be
insufficient to falsify the entire set of theories of evolution,
although it might be enough to make people think twice about the
general set of assumptions on which they are based."

Your site is
extrememly biased in favor of Evolution and is guilty of
attacking Creationism with the same methods that your site claims
Evolution is attacked. On the positive site, there is some good
information on what the theory of evolution teaches on this site,
but that is all.